From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10304211406.AA25239@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: nmalloc revisited
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:06:55 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <3EA380A9.A8CA5365@yahoo.com> from "CBFalconer" at Apr 21, 2003 01:24:57 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> You mean you are ready to incorporate it?  This was intended to
> allow others to thrash it, and expose any crawling creatures with
> more than four legs or less than one.

Martin Stromberg ran it as his default malloc in his CVS tree
for quite some time.  

The only way to get a more extensive test is to put it in an 
alpha test of the entire build suite.  So in a word, yes - if
we could get the issues resolved I'd want to incorporate it
(which is why I'm so bitchy about the compatibilty/docs).

I'd still like to make sure all the tests added since V2.03
(for things like fluffy 2GB+ mallocs) are fixed.